tv Washington This Week CSPAN October 19, 2013 4:00pm-6:01pm EDT
they had that plenary authority and it was guaranteed by the michigan state constitution and it had existed for 150 years, and they chose to enter this area, i think -- >> i don't see how that is consistent with justice sotomayor's answer to my question. don't the people of michigan have -- don't the people of michigan have plenary authority? >> in this case, the particular it's -- they are applying that plenary authority in --or in a way that is racially focused, and creates a political process that is disadvantageous to minorities. >> i'm not saying instead of political process. don't let me put words in your mouth. think what you think here. you say where the authority is divided in a certain way, and that is true under the
constitution of the state. so the state government lacks the power. and then you have to take the power from the people and change the constitution, and when you do that in respect to a benefit, then, in respect to benefits, washington -- you know, seattle and hunter kick in. see, where we are not dealing with past discrimination. >> this -- what we're talking about in terms of affirmative action are constitutionally permissible programs that were shown to this court to be the only way to achieve racial diversity and integration at the university of michigan. and whether you -- whether you explain that by looking at the reality of the inequality in education for black and white michigan or whatever it is that you come up with that requires that, the university has shown that this is the only way to achieve diversity in which racial diversity is a part of the -- is a part of the quotient. and so to take away that right
from the university and from the regents -- and i just want to go back to one of the questions that was answered. if you look at the law schools, the medical schools, the professional schools now in the state of michigan, there's been a precipitous drop in underrepresented minority enrollment in those schools. we are going back to the resegregation of those schools because of the elimination of affirmative action. >> to what extent -- to what extent does your argument depend i thought both hunter and seattle speak in these terms -- that the policies that are more difficult to enact are beneficial for the minority group. >> the --- say that -- i'm sorry. can you repeat -- >> to what extent does your argument depend upon the assumption that the programs that you say are now more difficult to enact are beneficial to the minority
group? >> i think it's an important component part, because i think it's in the benefit to the minority group that it's especially important -- >> well, why do you -- >> that the political process be on a level field. >> right. what if the question of whether it's a benefit to the minority group is more open to debate, whether it's through the mismatch theory that taylor and sander i guess have adopted, or other theories? do we have to assume in your favor that these definitely are beneficial to particular minority groups? >> certainly the minority voters of michigan believe them to be, because 90 percent of black voters in michigan voted against prop 2. and i think that that's a clear indication of the popularity of these programs and the perceived benefit of these programs. >> there may be a difference between popularity and benefit. in other words, you want us to assume that the programs are beneficial to a minority group? >> yes.
and they are beneficial to minority groups. they may -- they may serve to provide benefits for the population beyond minority groups, but they are a benefit if they -- >> your opponent says otherwise. he says that minority students have taken tougher courses, they have been better qualified to be admitted, and all sorts of other benefits. so it's certainly a debatable question. >> it's a debatable question in another forum in a different case, and in fact i think that case was the grutter case. this case isn't about -- isn't just about whether or not affirmative action benefits minorities. it's also the restructuring of the political process and the special burden that's placed on minorities. it's not -- if you want to go back to debating the -- whether affirmative action -- >> you're changing your answer, then. your answer to the chief was it does depend and now you are saying it doesn't depend on whether it benefits minorities
at all; it's just whether it places a -- a greater burden on minorities to change it. which is it? >> no, i -- >> one or the other? >> i think it's a two-part test. i think the first, the first thing that you look at is, is there a racial focus to the law, and is the benefit that's been taken away something that inures to minorities. and i think the second part of the test, and that's why i think seattle/hunter is such a narrow doctrine, is whether there also has been a restructuring of the political process and a special burden placed on minorities. it requires both. >> thank you, counsel. mr. bursch, you have 4 minutes remaining. >> thank you, mr. chief justice.
i'm going to start with a sentence from crawford, decided the same day as seattle, where this court defined what a racial classification is -- a racial classification either says or implies that persons are to be treated differently on account of race." it doesn't say anything about laws with or without a racial focus. and we think that is the test that ultimately should come out of the decision in this case. now, my friends on the other side disagree with that, because if that's the test section 26 is constitutional. and so they draw this false dichotomy between laws that involve race and laws that don't involve race; we will put them in two separate chambers of the legislature and charge a fee if you want to talk about -- about race. and we know that can't be right, because of, chief justice roberts, your observation that the whole point of equal protection is to take race off the table when everyone is being treated the same. that's why they can't -- >> you quoted -- you quoted from crawford. >> yes. >> and there is an opposing quote in seattle itself on page, what is it, 486?
>> yes. >> "when the state's allocation of power places unusual burdens on the ability of racial groups to enact legislation designed to overcome the special condition of prejudice, the governmental action seriously curtails the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied on to protect minorities." and it quotes carolene products. so -- and then the following sentence is -- "in the most direct sense, this implicates the judiciary's special role, not of treating the individuals as individuals, but the judiciary's special role in safeguarding the interests of those groups that are relegated to a position of political powerlessness." so the rationale of seattle is
that notion that we can't put hurdles in the way of a disadvantaged minority. >> justice ginsburg, there is two problems with that. first that's where the respondent's theory most closely knocks up against grutter, because you are right -- under seattle and hunter you've got to have a policy designed for the purpose of primarily benefitting the minority. but if that's the policy, it violates grutter, which is supposed to benefit everyone. but the bigger problem is if you treat a -- >> diversity does, but when you take away a tool for diversity that's what seattle is saying is wrong. >> right, but the bigger problem >> you can't take the tool away simply because it may include race as a factor, simply because you are changing the playing field.
>> but justice sotomayor, the biggest problem with respondents' test, with applying the literal language of seattle, is that as i said, the federal fair housing act, the equal credit act, a state equal protection law that mentions -- all of these things fall in the category of laws dealing with race. some are discriminatory. >> seattle and this case both involve constitutional -- seattle and this case both involve constitutional amendments. so why can't the law -- the law be drawn -- the line be drawn there? if you change the allocation of power in one of these less substantial ways, that's one thing; but when you require a constitutional amendment that's really a big deal. >> because that would still invalidate the michigan equal protection clause which has a racial focus that says you cannot discriminate based on race or sex, and yet no one would argue it should be subject to strict scrutiny. >> that's the benefit to a minority group. but what i'm thinking is go read the cases. you yourself seem to say these cases seem to apply alike to the benefits or to the discrimination against it.
i mean, there is lots of language in seattle. >> right. >> you come -- now, suppose you take that and say, all right, it was meant in context; but the context includes constitutional amendments because with the constitutional amendment you are restructuring. now you would lose on that theory; but there would be a limitation on the extent to which the people have the right to move powers around. >> justice breyer, the limitation has to be not only that, but also that you are repealing an antidiscrimination law, not an equal treatment law. or again, otherwise the state equal protection clause has to fall. so to the extent that i am right, that is a way that you can narrow hunter and seattle, and section 26 has to survive. if i am wrong about that, then respectfully seattle and hunter should be overruled. either way, it does not violate equal protection to require equal treatment. thank you. >> thank you, counsel, counsel. the case is submitted. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by
national captioning institute] >> do you think they are stupid? >> no. i always try to respect individual people. people who were christian that styles, stiff views of i cannot respect the belief of young creationists. i think they are either ignorant or [inaudible] i hope i treat them with politeness. a british journalist said it nicely "i respect you as a person too much to respect your ridiculousness." >> sally quinn questions richard dawkins sunday night on "afterwords."
>> now a discussion of the current state of the u.s. energy resources with a look back at the oil embargo that occurred 40 years ago this month. from this morning's washington " this is 40 minutes. host: joining us now from new york is john kingston. our topic -- the role of opec especially as we mark a historical event in opec's history. mr. kingston, thank you for joining us. and we start with a little bit of perspective? tell our viewers a little bit about what opec is and specifically an event 40 years ago which brings us to today's discussion. guest: opec was founded in 1960 in baghdad with the first meeting. in order to wrest a little bit more control from what was in the big oil companies and also to protect the price of oil from falling too far. there was too much oil for the world, the standard oil cartels for a long time kept it from falling further.
opec then took on that role. i think americans do or member the embargo in 1973, which came out of the yom kippur war, and as a result, they think of opec as an organization that is determined to boost the price as high as vacant, which is not what they are really all about. that was the role from nine to 73 up until about 1980, and then their strength weakened quite a bit. i think if you look now at the
world of oil, i do not think that the world is done with worrying about supplies. right now, supply is more likely to exceed demand than the other way around. as a result, i think the world of opec is going to be going back to that 1960 agreement, which is to keep the price of oil from falling too far. right now, it is an organization that is pretty much -- i will not say cover. well, maybe i will say a cover for saudi arabia, which puts oil on the market and risk -- and withdrawals it at the market exceeded. is not working in concert anymore to keep the price of oil up to individual countries willing to sacrifice some of their output. and so casey saudi's with a little bit of contribution may be from the kuwaitis and the united arab emirates keep the oil off the market. it was not all of opec. i think my history is our tonight, but i'm not sure. it was exacerbated in the u.s.
by a distribution system that was government controlled. allotments and allocations. when you look back today, rules adjusting and play the crazy. the market because rate rigid and the ability to move shortages from one place to another, move surpluses was not there. which it certainly is today. i think everybody who waited on gas lines -- i literally was given a car by my parents, and i drove it out of the lot, and i got on the gas line. that is how real these memories are to me. those kinds of gas lines -- yes, they were initially created by the embargo, but they were made 10 times worse by distribution system of government regulation system in the u.s. that is no longer there. you cannot just say embargo gas line. the other thing i would say, to go ahead, pedro. host: at the time, president nixon had to deal with it. what did he do? guest: he talked about removing those controls.
there was i like to do. the oil did not fully get deregulated until ronald reagan took over in 1981. striking an oil price controls was one of the first act he did, i think day to of his presidency. host: after nixon, president carter had to deal with it. what was his approach? guest: first of all, at that time, the media crisis had passed, you had some decline in demand, so really the crisis is always caused by the opposition in the margin. jimmy carter talked a lot about energy independence. he referred to it as the moral equivalent of war. he talked about developing oil shale. very excited about west. there was a government corporation out west that was set up to do it. he was blindsided by the
collapse of the shah in iran. what was interesting about the shah, they do not care how much oil iran produce. this was a major part of their export earnings, a major part of their economy, so they want to sell as much oil as possible. mohammad reza pahlavi was different because he did not care if the iranian industry fell apart because he was leading an islamic revolution. that is almost unique in history. when the shah fell, there was a significant loss in the world, the prices spiked again and help set off a new round of inflation along with other things i think you can almost say they helped the reelection of ronald reagan in 1980. host: our guest john kingston of platts, you can call the lines, (202) 585-3881 for republicans, (202) 585-3880 for democrats, (202) 585-3882 for independents.
that is a tweet @cspanwj. send us an e-mail, journal@c- span.org. mr. kingston, address president carter. when he addressed the nation, what was called a fireside chat, you may remember at this time he also told us to turn off thermostat and wear a sweater. here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> we must face the fact that the energy shortage is permanent. there is no way we can solve it quickly. if we all cooperate and make modest sacrifices, if we learn to live through affiliate remember the importance of helping our neighbors, then we can find ways to adjust and to make our society more efficient
and our own lives more enjoyable and productive. the utility companies must promote conservation and not consumption. oil and natural gas companies must be honest with all of us about the reserves and profits. we will find out the difference between real shortages and artificial ones. we will ask private companies to sacrifice just as private citizens must. all of us must learn to waste less energy simply by keeping our thermostat at 65 degrees in the daytime and 55 degrees at night, you can save half the current shortage of natural gas. there is no way that i or anyone else in the government can solve our energy problems if you are not willing to help.
host: mr. kingston, any takeaways from president carter's statement at the time? guest: i'm not sure what i thought at the time because i was in college and i probably thought that some of that made sense. you look back now, and you to scratch your head. the whole idea of civic virtue as a way of solving an energy crisis, that might last for a few weeks. look, energy is a good that people want to consume. they want to consume a lot of it. they want to consume it up to the point that it makes their lives better. if you want able to consume less, you have to make the price higher. there is really no other way. i know there is a lot of cheering about the u.s. decline in gasoline consumption recently, and the whole idea is because that is because of the
caf? standards. caf? standards are certainly having a contribution the standards are having a contribution. the price of gasoline has tended to be three $2 and $4. recently it has been towards the i was in college, and i went to a basketball game at a cold arena. the players on the opposing team started again wearing a wool hat. i think jimmy carter did realize that, and he talked about the regulation. he was not able to fully deregulated. those thoughts are very nice,
but they are no solution to a long-standing problem. >> we are giving you a list of the opec member countries. we will take our first call him on the independent line. caller: hello. good morning. until a couple weeks ago, i was never the biggest expert when it came to opec. my wife was really helping me. right near the north field in philadelphia -- she happens to work in a company that oversees oil. she was trying to explain to me the situation with the united states and opec. host: the caller hung up. apologies for that. we will go to bill from george
on the republican line. caller: i have a question for mr. kingston. i want to know how long it may be before gas prices come down, and what it will take to make them come down. guest: i am bad at forecasting. they have come down quite a bit. if you look at the fundamentals, in the short term, there is a number out there called the opec call. it is something like the international energy agency will estimate worldwide demand, and track from -- subtract from that non-opec supply. what is left is the opec call. opec production has been running above the call. there has been a lot of pressures on opec. the u.s. had not imported iranian oil for some time, but
we have a lot of sanctions that have cut iranian oil. iraq is not gaining production the way we thought it was. libya is in turmoil. sudan as well. syria was a consumer, producer. when you see that, you think if all these countries could get their act together, produce a lot more to their capacity, then opec would have quite a job to reduce the amount of oil on the market to prevent the price from collapsing. i'm not a forecaster. given the constraints in world supply, i don't think you're going to be looking at $2 oil. when it was $1.80, that was when we were in the deepest part of the financial crisis.
places that had enormous gas lines, suddenly i was driving by them and they had no gas lines. i was living in virginia at the time, and we did not have gas lines. i would talk to my family in new york, and they did. the market is so much more efficient, able to take shortages -- surpluses in some places and move them to another area to fill a shortage. after katrina, the colonial pipeline was shut down because of loss of power. there were few will distributors added hercules like efforts to make sure their customers were filled. you could not do that back then when there were all these rules. outside of short bursts, after sandy, gas lines that went on for months are a thing of the past. host: this is charles on the independent line.
caller: back when the oil prices first started jumping, there was a prince from saudi arabia who went on the national news and stated his prices were much cheaper than what they were claiming on the news. a lot of these oil prices are artificially hyped by exxon mobil and various gas producing companies that take oil in. i like to have his comment on whether he wants to admit that this went on, this prints made this statement on the national news. guest: i'm not sure what the state man was -- statement was. a company like exxon mobil, the last place they set a price is
the wholesale distribution point in the system. the price point you are seeing at a station is not set by exxon or mobil. they license their brand to an independent owner. you have significant investment in this country of integrated oil companies that produce and sell oil. conoco phillips, conoco, and phillips 66 refines it and sells it at the rack. marathon oil split up as well. all those companies have no more control. the people running conoco phillips have nothing to do with gasoline. they take crude out of the ground and sell it to a refiner. same thing with marathon.
hess is splitting up. the only integrated refiners you have now are exxon mobil, chevron, bp, and shall. -- shall -- shell. americans look of these oil companies as being identical. a company like bolero -- valero their business model is completely different from the business model of a company like exxon mobil. when the price of oil gets really high, they're generally not happy because it makes demand decline and hurts the convenience stores. the idea of oil companies all having the same interests is very outdated. the last thing that chevron and exxon mobil can do is control the price of oil. there are at the mercy of the market. exxon mobil formed because the price was at its lowest level. the people at mobile thought it would stay there. the people at exxon did not. they realize that trying to control the price of oil makes [inaudible] look easy.
host: a comment on twitter. guest: i will say no. it's one big world market out there. the u.s. import dependence has dropped or medically. i saw a story that looked at oil imports. i think it was "usa today." the number that matters are your net imports. the u.s. is becoming a significant exporter of
products. we have the most modern refining system in the world. the u.s. gulf, the rotterdam, antwerp and area, and the singapore area. the u.s. system is second to none. refiners have increasingly taken in more oil, turned into higher value products, and sent it out. that's a good thing. it is a profit-making, job creating aspect. looking at the import numbers, how much crude are we importing that is incorrect.
you have to look at net imports, 6.5 million barrels a day. at the time of the embargo, they were at 6.5 million barrels a day. we could not survive without them. the world market is completely interrelated, but we are in a much better position. host: bridget is on the republican line from poor richie, florida. caller: thank you. my name is brenda. in 1973, my husband was number one in the state of north carolina in service stations. he had an interstate station, and it was doing better than any around.
he had another smaller station. within six months after being nominated best in north carolina, we had to close down both of them because we had a 24-hour contract. because of that, we had a lot of people that by the 15th of the month, we were out of our allotment we could get for the whole month. so we had to close down. we were doing pretty well. what i wanted to say is, all my life i have lived within a third of a mile from a colonial pipeline, a big pipeline going towards charlotte. i never thought of it being dangerous. my mom told me what it was and to stay away from it. but why in the world doesn't the republicans and democrats get together and tell the automobile people that we're going to run on natural gas and put that pipeline going down here?
guest: whatever happened to the woman's husband's station, we did have allotments. the market is 10 times more flexible now today. the market running out, that would not happen today. as far as natural gas vehicles, natural gas vehicle sound wonderful. natural gas is cheaper than oil. they used to run on a rough ratio that would very, but not by a huge amount. starting in 2009, they started to vary considerably. there are problems with natural gas vehicles. congress cannot just mandate this. you are talking about -- you're not going to go as far on a tank of compressed natural gas as you are on a take of oil. her husband owned a station.
if you're going to say you have to be a natural gas dispenser, you're talking about major investment. these stations are not owned by the companies anymore. there is anecdotal evidence that natural gas vehicles are making an impact in the u.s.. i read the other day that gm is coming out with the m pollack, fueled by gasoline and impress natural gas -- impala, fueled by gasoline and compressed natural gas. it always amazes me that if i had a one gallon jug of gasoline, i could put that into a car that weighs 35 hundred pounds and it would propel me down the road at 60 miles an hour for 20 to 25 miles. i still find that incredible. the reason is because nothing yet has been able to match the energy intensity of oil.
the only thing that matches it is uranium, and that has its own issues. anything that will compete with oil has to do -- deal with the fact that it is very transportable and very energy dense. host: have electric cars and electric/gasoline cars made an impact as far as not only oil consumption, but the amount of people buying them, and if it is changing the story when it comes to our competitors on oil? guest: it is not changing the story. gasoline consumption diminished because of that is miniscule. the gasoline/electric guitar mix i hope has a very bright future here. there's always a concern with electric vehicles, what they
call range anxiety. i ran out of battery power, and i'm going to get stuck somewhere. if you have a chevy volt vehicle, you can switch to the gasoline option. you could drive it from new york to florida. after the battery runs out, you go on gasoline the rest of the way. i do hope that that technology makes it. there have been some issues. the issue on all of these things remain the cost of the battery and the ability to store electricity. host: kenneth from georgia is on the democrats' line. caller: hello. host: go right ahead. caller: i want to know something about the main players for [indiscernible] host: caller, go ahead. caller: the main players for the oil company is exxon mobil, bp, and opec. we got a shortage in all the united states, we don't got a shortage in all the united
states. you cause a coup in vietnam. guest: i'm not sure what the question is. vietnam has turned out to be a major disappointment in the world of oil production. i went to a conference in vietnam in the mid-1990's. vietnam has never turned out to be the oil-producing area it thought. there are major players. opec's chair of production has diminished.
at its peak, it was closing out 50%. the individual companies, exxon mobil, bp -- they continue to be major players. their biggest issue as they go forward is lack of opportunities. so many countries have gone to a nationalistic view of not necessarily keeping out for an exploration, but making life for them not necessarily pleasant. brazil shocked everyone by saying that the state oil company was going to take 51% of every project, and that they were always going to be the
operator. that makes brazil a little less attractive. the biggest issues that these major oil companies have is a lack of opportunity. if you have a lack of opportunity, there's not a lot you can control. host: what is the impact of the news that when it comes to oil and natural gas combined, we are surpassing what worship uses -- russia produces? guest: it's an interesting milestone, and shows that the u.s. has benefited from private property rights. it turned out that one of the key parts of our energy policy was private control of mineral rights. you don't have that in most other parts of the world.
if i was a farmer in north dakota and a company came to me and said, we want to drill for oil on your lead and if we hit it, you're going to get a big -- land and if we hit it, you're going to get a paycheck every month. they certainly are not like that in russia. there is a private property incentive in the u.s. to drill. this is one of the key reasons while u.s. production of oil and natural gas has soared, and russia has stayed flat. russia has turnout to be very inhospitable to foreign investment. host: there's a story in the "wall street journal" that talks about specific energy companies highlighting the fact that there is more drilling going on in the
gulf coast, deepwater drilling in the gulf coast. guest: there is. they are continuing to drill in the gulf of mexico. do you know how much doyle that we export? -- oil that we export? host: we will leave it there. guest: there's a great deal of confusion out there. u.s. exports a very small amount of crude, mostly to canada. i believe the ability to do that is enough to. -- in nafta. the u.s. has become a significant exporter of petroleum products. u.s. exports have hit 3 million barrels a day. you look at what comes out of
singapore and the rotterdam area. it is kind of controversy over because people think, why don't you leave? these products home and lower the price -- these products at home and lower the price? we are consuming less oil, and that's a good thing. you've got these gigantic refineries down mostly on the gulf coast. they are highly complex and work better at a high rate of operation. they are very efficient. what do we do with them? let's boy oil -- buy oil from somewhere else, and turn it into a higher value diesel project -- product, and export it somewhere else? i think that's a great thing. we are becoming a processor. if people go into data and look at data, the number to look at for imports is your net imports. net imports topped out in this country at 2005. at one point we hit 13 million barrels a day. we are now at six and a half million barrels a day. think about that, 50% decline where we are not spending dollars abroad. when president obama speaks about oil exports, he's really talking about product exports.
host: how much oil do we get from canada and mexico? guest: you look back at the days the embargo started. mexico, when the embargo hit in 1973, we imported no oil from mexico at all. we importing over a million barrels of oil a day from mexico, but we also send them a lot of products. the net runs around 700,000 barrels a day. the net out of canada is a little over 200,000. when you throw in mexico and net imports, you have total net imports of 6.5. net imports from canada and mexico, about 3.
these net imports are really not rollerball -- vulnerable to embargo. i don't think the u.s. is going to be net imports of zero, but i think we can be net imports equaling mexican and canadian net imports. that doesn't mean you won't import from anywhere else. you're always going to be exporting someplaces. what matters is your net and how you do relative to canada and mexico.
host: we have some information about imports that the u.s. takes in per year. take a look at that information. this is jim on the republican line. caller: good morning. i've heard some pretty good sources that we have so much doyle underground here --oil underground here that we could supply arab countries with it. why don't we drill? guest: you get these tremendous numbers, what is known as oil shale in the rockies. the reserves are enormous, but very expensive to drill. a lot of those places, what comes up is a petroleum. the reserves have been thrown around a lot. it is a very water intensive process. it's very expensive.
you don't want the price of oil to be at the level needed to make those things economic. you have to get up to 120, 100 $30. -- $120, $130. this is one thing about the shale that has been revolutionary. once they learn how to get oil out of shale relatively cheaply, the success rate on shale wells is 90%. if they know the oil is there, they just stick the bit down there and get the hydrocarbons. it's very expensive, different from the shale you get in north dakota. host: mark williams asks off of twitter if there are plans to build additional refineries in the united states.
guest: there are a couple of small refineries going up in north dakota. they are narrowly focused to produce diesel. the truck traffic in north dakota is up a bit. they want to bring diesel up there. this has been the most overwrought fact in u.s. oil discussion, that we have not built a new refinery in years. what we have done is greatly expanded refineries, upgraded them. we have made them more complex. the fact that we have not build a new refinery is not relevant. it is a non-issue. we have taken our refineries and made them bigger in many cases. we have made them more efficient. they are the world's best. host: does federal policy get involved in building a refinery, and hinder the ability to build one? guest: you need to get permits,
which makes the cost higher. regulation tends to favor those who are already in place. you're going from a zero base to build up enough capital to build a new refinery. the cost of getting things like an air permit are expensive. there was a plan to build a refinery in yuma, arizona. they got the air permit. but the economics don't work. refineries in the u.s. have gotten relatively profitable. in the 1990's, there was one sale of three refineries in one shot with the replacement cost of the refineries sold $.15 on the dollar. who would build a new refinery with those economics? host: a caller on the democrat'' line in florida.
caller: i want to thank the gentleman for the program that gives good information on energy. i'm an engineer. i've been involved in the problem for four decades. the question is, is there a practical alternative fuel? i suggest you and your readers read the 2003 paper by dr. roberto nichols. the result was two things. because gasoline is so energy efficient, it takes 1.5 gallons of ethanol to get you the same distance down the road. it takes 1.9 gallons of methanol to get you that far down the road. they did an engine modification and generator and got the percentage of methanol down. methanol does not require the cost. ethanol costs too much to
compete without subsidy. guest: right. thank you for the call, and thank you for watching platts energy week. i remember going to some hearings a couple years ago. there were some citizen saying, we need a new energy future. oil is a 19th century oil. it still is, but it does not take away that density of energy. that is why all these things like ethanol need some sort of
subsidy. in the case of ethanol, it is now a mandate. they just cannot compete with the density of oil. that is why the arguments against oil become political. we want to divorce ourselves from the strife in the middle east. it is going to be a tough product. it is so many attributes in delivering value to its users. ethanol, methanol don't do that. natural gas has possibilities because its price is so favorable relative to oil, whether it is a natural gas vehicle or there is some way of using natural gas as a way of producing hydrogen. that's an enormous cost as well. guest: finishing up, mr. kingston, opec -- host: finishing up, mr. kingston, opec -- how does it stand today? guest: opec's role going forward is going to be to keep the price
from collapsing. for years, they had individual country quotas. they don't have those quotas right now. let's assume there are some great breakthrough between iran and the u.s. you have 800,000 miles a day on the market. i don't know if they have it now. we could have a gigantic collapse in the price of oil, and that's great for the u.s. now you have got these oil revolutions going on in texas and north dakota. what happens to that? there is a comfort point where the oil companies can make money producing and consumers can be happy with the price. opec is more likely to go back to its original role, which is to keep the price from collapsing. host: john kingston joining us from new york, from platts. thank you for joining us. we're going to give you a set of
goals called broken city highlighting gridlock in washington. then john will talk about what they view as one of the three main credit rating agencies and the impact of their decisions. later we will discuss the nuclear program in the meeting last week in geneva. like 7:00 a.m. eastern on c- span. christie andhris buono. -- barbara after this debate, the supreme court says same-sex marriages could begin taking place monday. v and a courtesy of njt
little less than an hour and a half. thee do welcome here to second and final gubernatorial debate sanctions by the new jersey election law enforcement commission. we thank you for being with us on tv and here in the hall as well. the questions will come from me and our panelists. i will introduce them in a moment. they are known only to me and the panelists. neither the candidate nor the election commission have seen these questions. the candidate will have one minute to respond. of the candidates have agreed to forgo opening statements in the interest of devoting more time to the questions that matter to you. we will be hearing closing statements from them as they wrapped up. knowudience has agreed to
applause, doing, hissing, or cheering. we will let it slide just this once at the very beginning as we introduce our candidates for the evening. andtor barbara buono governor chris christie. applause]d >> before we start the questions, let's introduce the panel. we're proud to be joined by our chief political correspondent from njtv. ron allen national
correspondent for nbc news. we welcome all of you. we are prepared for you to start. governor, let me start with you. you have a strong reputation nationally as a problem solver, consensus builder, as a bipartisan leader. administration, you have referred to a number of your democratic opponents in the legislature by some pretty strong terms. the major, senator smith a joke, you asked reporters that they could take a back out to senator weinberg, you called one reporter an idiot which i guess is sometimes justified. he also called bashar "numnuts." regret the language
used when a second time be any different? >> it would not. when folks act in a certain manner, people do not call them out. it has not prevented us from doing all the things that you talked about in the preface. to work across the aisle with republicans and democrats to be able to make sure that we get things done. billion pension reform, property tax cap, but is that the past. that have been passed. is important that folks know who i am and what i tell them something i'm telling the truth as i see it and i will not mince words about it. i think that is the way those people in new jersey are. they are not going to say anything from chris christie the second term if we're lucky enough to have one. at theink the governor
last debate he defended his name-calling and bullying by saying it was an example of strong leadership. he said it was an example of street talk. i disagree. i think it is an example of a disrespect for people's opinions when they happen to disagree with him, whether they are a veteran or other legislators. i think that undermines coming together in strong by partnership and being able to bridge the gap. i do not think that the strong leadership. a perceptionen that you had trouble vocalizing the troops behind you. a lot of financial donations coming in. you have had 50 elected officials in the state endorsed the governor, not just say they will sit this one out but tell they will endorse the
governor. can you tell some of the people out there who may wonder if you cannot leave your own party how you can leave a state? >> how long do i have? >> you have a minute. ofchris christie is a bully dust worse combination of bully and a boss. -- is we have no idea why they closed. mayor is ald, the democrat. he has not endorsed the governor. this governor embraced a political boss of ethics county. is someone who uses campaign fund to take supporters to puerto rico, could -- to go to the super bowl. you are interested in getting their endorsements, getting the
backing of the political machine, and looking the other way. that is the kind of backroom politics i'm running against. >> let's be direct about this. endorsements.have you wish you did. secondly, you have a significant amount of nerve. after you suit up in 2009, and said that joe spoke ouzo was and now heing -- sits in jail for selling political jobs. a friend of yours who you supported. you want to throw stones, get out of your glass house. >> excuse me. excuse me. we are not going to tolerate that. the candidates will get their
respect, and be allowed to speak. if you cannot control yourself, you'll will be asked to leave. we next question will be -- will handle that appropriately. thank you for the audience for a bank. question -- you may have the opportunity to speak, but you do not have the opportunity to speak on our time. both candidates are worthy of respect. you are violating that right right now. >> let me try and go forward if i could. we will let that pass by. >> good evening. as we sit here tonight, the federal government is shut down. the united states is possibly going to default for the first
time in its history. it is a feral -- it describes as a -- we have described this as a failure. do you support him in the senate? you were in d.c. last week yourself. what did you say to your congressional colleagues about how they should handle the situation? >> i told them to get the government reopened. , not to closeob it down. i stand by the position i've taken, both sides are responsible'. both sides are playing brinksmanship. it is the wrong thing to do. the lawn again. the fact is that we do not agree on everything. that is the strength of any
political party. people don't have to agree on everything. i do not believe on steve on his position on that. i still believe he's the best person for the job. ed is why i am voting for him tomorrow. what are wessue is, doing with the partisanship that we are having their. when the government close out in 2006 because they couldn't agree how much to raise taxes on the people of new jersey. that hasn't happened on my term as governor, because we brought people together. >> in 2011, he said that -- to mcgrath were going to raise taxes, you wish it of the government down. you said this should not be about playing games. were you serious, replaying games? >> that is called negotiating.
you have to let people know were you going to draw the line in the sand. the proof is in the pudding. in four years we have added for balanced budgets with no new taxes. a record amount of education eight. the government has not been closed down. we work closely. we bring about the type of change that we need in new jersey. we have done it, and i'm proud of that record. if you have to do negotiating in public, senator sweeney and speaker oliver were doing that. that is the way it works sometimes. the difference is, unlike in washington, we never close down the government in new jersey. >> how long do i have? >> 30 seconds. >> listening to governor christie you would think i was governor already. and youjon corzine,
know it. this governor likes to point fingers. he is trying to thread the needle about the responsibility for the shutdown. he campaign and raise money, and got the architects of the shutdown. marco rubio, congressman king are the people holding the american people hostage. they don't like the affordable care act prayed that is the only reason. they'll have the vote to change it. a mock a threat to receipt. if this governor doesn't put the responsibility where it is, and exercise leadership, then he is as guilty as the guy driving the train off the cliffs. as u.s. attorney, you made a name for yourself prosecuting political corrupt politicians. as a candidate in 2009, you were out against the corzine machine and talked about democratic , and promised to
turn trenton upside down. yet you forged alliances with several strong democratic party bosses in the state, including george norcross, the subject of a 2004 investigation in your office. and the subject of the 13 count complaint by the election law enforcement commission. my question is, how was forging alliances with these bosses consistent with your promise to turn trenton upside down? >> it has turned trenton upside down. property taxes are lower now because of the work that we have done. we have worked together to make sure that the pension and benefit system was reformed. that was a bipartisan accomplishment. we have balanced for budgets in a row without new taxes on anyone. all that work has been bipartisan. i am proud of that record, and proud to have forged relationships with the folks i
need to forge relationships with to run the government effectively and efficiently for the people of new jersey. in the end, people talk about bipartisanship. they don't how to do it. what i have shown is how to do it. how to work with democrats and republicans to get things done, and the proof in the pudding is 50 democratst -- have endorsed a because we have run the government anyway that is made them proud. i am proud of that record. i wouldn't change one thing. >> the governor is part of the problem. the political bosses are living in fear that i might get elected. i was elected to serve their narrow political and business interest. they are afraid because i get elected, i'm going to answer to one entity. all of you. i am tough. i've got to this position without having anybody handed to me. i'm doing for the right reasons. i'm here for the middle class and the working poor.
i am not here to serve the narrow political interests of any political boss. this governor is part of the problem. >> our next question. -- iternor christie, requires fundraising around the country. if you runng year, for president, you will travel the country campaigning. if you win the presidency, you would have to resign. -- whenever christie leaves the state, i poll shows that 71% of new jersey's don't have an opinion about the lieutenant governor because they do not know enough about her. tracy's office is not allowing her to sit down for a newspaper profile. she speaks to business groups all the time, and has a large ,ortfolio looking after jobs the governor has kept her out of the public eye.
buono, will your running mate be available to the media? >> out slowly -- absolutely. she is a talented person. she has enormous things to offer. at the last debate, he said he dismissed it. he said he can walk and chew gum at the same time. what part of that is running new jersey? walking or chewing gum? you are trivializing the whole issue. the fact the matter is, i would like to know if you could balance the budget and not do it on the backs of the working poor. i would like to know if you could reform education, and not do it vilifying teachers. the fact of the matter is, the governor is running -- and we ought to return the favor on november 5. >> let me tell you. i am proud of being lieutenant
governor. she has done an extraordinary job. she appears publicly all the time. if you and the press would show up, she would answer questions. you guys never shop to see her. she is one of the most available, accessible, and publicly successful political figures we have in the state. if you talk to anybody in the business community, they will tell you that she has been a leader in making sure that the business community does well, and we create jobs for the people of new jersey. she would do a great job in the next four years as lieutenant governor. >> i've a question about minimum wage. voters are going to decide soon about whether this should be demoralized as part of our constitution. you have been quoted as saying that you would be for a raise of minimum wage if you could be convinced it was not going to hurt business. have you been convinced that it is not going to her business?
>> you are not quoting me accurately. i am for an increase in the minimum wage. legislature.the a dollar increase in three years prayed not connected to automatic increases based on inflation. the legislator decided on another path. i'm opposed to people getting automatic raises every year regardless of the health of the business they work for, or regardless of their performance. now, those businesses will be saddled with every year folkssed salaries for the they employ. and that is wrong and bad for business. of national federation independent businesses said that if this passes, it could cost 31,000 jobs in new jersey. i want -- it is a compromise. given minimum wage increase over three years so businesses could plan for that increase, and make sure that the folks are working every day got a in their wage. that is my position. he continues to be my position.
wage increase. >> the governor said he was consistent at the last debate. he is consistent. he has consistently been on the side of the wealthy. he has turned his back on the working poor. how can we seriously be debating whether we should increase the minimum wage $1.25 in the highest cost of living state. people can make it in the state. they are on food stamps. they live in public housing. so many have two jobs. --ldn't it be nice to have would knit be nice to not have to be in two jobs to support your family. >> -- that was in the midst of the financial meltdown. the governor had the revenue shortfall exceeding $2 billion. what would you have cut instead?
have -- i would have reinstated the tax on the millionaires. that millionaire tax, which sunsetted in 2009. the last debate, the governor how temp of about what a tough budgie was faced with. u.n. 49 other states were faced with the reception. -- he cuthose to cut property tax relief by the biggest amount ever in state history. in the middle of a recession. he cut schooling in the middle of a recession. he didn't have millionaires pay a penny more. that is not the kind of governor i will be. >> the millionaires tax is estimated to raise $608 million. that wouldn't plug the hole prayed you when it cut something as well. likes when i was budget chair, we figured it out. we were in the middle of a global shutdown reid to discuss
that in retrospect is difficult to do. i can tell you what i did when i was legit chair. when revenues were followed for the floor, we were able to figure it out and prioritize, and cut for provide billion dollars. education will be the last place i cut. >> she did spend and spend, and x herleapt up to fi problem. governor you have to make tough decisions. i am comparable with the decisions i made given the problems i was left with by governor corzine. when there was a billion-dollar problem, i'm not surprised at that. it was your job as the budget chairman to fix that problem. you didn't. thankfully we fixed it. >> next question.
>> i want to ask you about jobs and the economy. it is probably the number one concern of people tuning in here tonight. will i be able to find a job and support my family? can you name one or two initiatives that you would do in the short term to help fix the situation of the unemployment rate? in places like newark, it is 14%. two specific things that you would do that your pond would not do to create jobs in the short term? what i would you do. the first thing is, i would make sure that the got our taxes in more reasonable shape than we do know. we are one of the highest taxed states in america. i have been trying to get taxed up through the legislature. we need to make new jersey more affordable for an income tax
level. that would be one of the first things we would do. secondly, make sure the regulatory environment continues to get better than it is now. the fact is when you go and talk to small business people, the lieutenant governor and i do this all the time, what they say his tax issues are a huge problem for them expanding and hiring folks. the regulatory limit is so onerous in new jersey,. those are two things that would do right away. folks and understand in the year before i became governor, we lost 230,000 jobs. we have created 143,000. sectort year of private jobs for us since 2000 in new jersey. we are making progress. >> we have foreigner thousand out of work. you criticize your opponent because we have the highest on a plummet in the region. for every single year you have been in office, 2010, 2 thousand
11, 2012, the highest unemployment in the region. the lowest rate of job creation. we are lagging the nation in economic growth. new jersey is only restoring half of the jobs we lost in the recession. unlike new york, who regained all of them. what this governor should do, which he hasn't done, is focused on small businesses. he is a one trick pony. he is focused on the sum and substance of the economic plan. >> i would like to follow. can you name -- i hear the criticism. what would you do in the short term to create jobs and places like newark? to get those people jobs? --t can you citizen tonight
what can you say to them tonight? of the businesses in new jersey are small businesses. this governor has left them behind. the 2.1 billion dollars in tax credits that he gives to corporations, there is no accountability. that is what is left in the bottom of the barrel. i would refocus some of those tax credits to the small businesses. they are the ones crying out for help. they need the assistance and resources to locate. y need the access to capital. states can also implement its. it deals with putting tax credits into economically distressed areas. that would have a major impact on creating jobs in our city. >> would you like to say something questioner >> no. [laughter]
>> we have a choice. ladies and gentlemen. you can talk all my long. a way to get your message across, and this is not the way. run for office and get your own debate. >> consistently, property taxes have been among the most important policy issues for new jersey residents. that is property taxes. during each of your 10 years in office, independent analysis shows are pretty taxes and increase. 13%, andchristie, , 7.5%. buono given the notable lack of success that each of you has had in addressing this consultative issue, what will you do differently over the next four years?
all, i disagree with the premise of the question. in the 10 years before i became governor, taxes were up 70%. that was the actual number they went up. years, the first full years of property tax caps, we took a train that was going 100 miles an hour, and slowed it to 20 miles per hour. we need to do a few other things to get the job done. first we need civil service reform. if civil service reform gets done, mayors across the state le to share services in a way that will be economically effective to bring those numbers down as well. thatecond thing, make sure we are allowing for consolidation of municipalities. secondly, we are settling these towns with huge sick pay payoffs. hundreds of thousands of dollars
it will have to bond for to be able to pay them. if we could bring that to my plan, which is zero means zero, that would bring property taxes down. the governor came into office, he promised he would not cut property tax rebates. that is the first thing he did. it was a large cut. unfortunately, the numbers speak for themselves. they've rose 20% on average. in jersey city, 30%. in tom's server, 37%. fundamental differences, i believe that billionaire should pay their fair share. he doesn't. that is why he vetoed it. i would not veto it. school funding. i was the sponsor and i fought very hard to get the school funding pass. we thought school funding is a major driver property taxes.
this letter best opportunity to direct state funding where the child's needs were. to relieve the pressure property taxes. progressive robbery taxes crushing homeowners. this governor came in and dismantled it. >> you recently spent time in camden. you appointed a new .uperintendent this question is about poverty. city in theorest country. in the past, poverty has been optimized by homeless people. you campaign there in 2009 and highlighted it. then cam and has been clear. it quickly returned. it is across the street. by all estimates, as large as
ever. why is that? why haven't you been back to tent city? what policies have you advance to help the destitute? >> i am proud of the focus that we have brought to the city of camden. people in south jersey have always felt like politicians ignore anything that happened south of iowa 95. new economic opportunity act gives tremendous opportunities in a city like camden to grow and attract more businesses. the schoolen over system. a school system had 23 of the 25 worst schools in new jersey in their city. we have taken it over. we have done a cooperatively with the school board. we also have made a big
investment in the cancer super -- cancer center in cooper. medicaid program in new jersey. unlike others, we have expanded medicaid prayed that is going to make health care more available to people in camden. when economic opportunity start to come, they will have jobs as well. >> the people in tent city are just like you and me. people live from paycheck to paycheck. any fuss could find ourselves in that position. my heart went out to them. i told them that i would be back. the fact the matter is, this governor has for to affordable housing. he has delayed and blocked affordable housing in the state. it is another example of him not being focused on the needs of the working class and the working poor. he is focused on the needs of the wealthy. not only did you fail to offer a remedy for affordable housing, he thwarted it by taking money from municipalities for
affordable housing. the candidates will be free to ask questions of one another. his opportunity, senator buono has a question for governor christie? >> yes. private insurance company's have made it difficult and painful for those that have been victimized by hurricane sandy to get back in their homes and rebuild. finger atointed the the federal government. the fact of the matter is, there is a lot a private insurance companies victimizing hurricane sandy fowlkes that are not in their homes. you have set in the last debate that 95% of cases were) that doesn't take into account the fact that people were denied. theirse that didn't know rights. governorses, their have taken those insurance companies to task.
they have actually taken some of those insurance companies to court. you have done neither. why is it that you have no problem being tough on teachers and public employees, but you would not be tough on insurance companies? take theason we approach we have taken, is that has been successful. i am not going to have a fight with every person who senator buono wants me to have a fight with. 95% of the claims with private insurance companies from victims of hurricane sandy have been adjusted and settle. an outstanding record. compared to new york and connecticut, the reason why they are having the problems they are --ing, they don't have the who has been able to sit down with insurance companies. our rates are better than settlement rates in new york and connecticut. we make a comparison, know what
you're comparing it to. it is because they have not had the success we have had in new jersey. we are going to continue to fight hard. the problem has been the obama administration's national flood insurance plan. that has been the real plan. they will not submit themselves to arbitration like all the other insurance companies have. >> pointing the finger at the obama administration. the fact is, we have private insurance companies we have control over and we should take them to task. wax it is time for you to take a question from governor christie. >> we have examined your $350 billion. for you said you're what a pay for increased property tax rebates. my question for you is, how are you going to fund the two point $3 billion? raise the sales tax again? >> my plan for school funding is
going to be based in the school funding reform i fought hard to pass. it was phased in with fiscal constraints. my budget will be focused on making public education a priority. not a whipping boy. we may not be able to pay for the entire thing. you know this. i'm surprises is a real question. any plan is a vision for four years. it we implement it with fiscal constraints. will be the focus of my budget will be the middle class, and the working poor. i will not allen sit on their backs. --ill not finance my fellow theiritical campaign on budget. just to benefit your cell. you did know how much was going to cost, and you didn't care. there you have it. >> we are going to take a
detour. going to cast a net for our viewers to send in questions . this is one of the questions we got. christie, part of the department of homeless securities mission is to respond to national disasters. did the response to superstorm sandy satisfy you, considering how long the jersey families lacked access to food, water, and heat? good question. >> i am proud of the relationship we had with the obama administration. the president was had two days after the storm. he sat with me in a conference room in south jersey with the director of fema, and looked at me and said anything the governor needs, he is to get. the presidentd -- of the noted president have kept every
promise made to us. people without power. we had to go to other state to mobilize utility workers with the help of the department of homeland security. 8.8 million our citizens. we have the american red cross coordinating with our administration to feed people and keep them warm prayed to have stations where they could charge their cell phones and do the things they need to hit lives back to normal. you are not going to hear me read aside the obama administration for their response to hurricane sandy. i am proud of our partnership. >> i wasn't directly involved. it affected my legislative district. i think the governor did a great job during sandy. i wish that we could see that governor again. we have had three hearings with the legislature were sending -- and whenified, my staff told me that zero of
, zero dollars have been distributed to people who have been displaced by hurricane sandy, i didn't believe it. it is true. >> if we get hit by another hurricane, why would be better to have you in charge then him? >> i won't move our railcars down into the meadowlands so that we have a few million dollars worth of damage. i will have a contract in place for the cleanup and the aftermath of the storm. that wasn't the case this time. we were forced with excepting a no-bid contract from one of the governors lyrical mentors, who called him before the storm and said i have a client, would you hire them? exorbitant the money
new jersey is had to pay. those are two areas there will be a difference. we need to have a governor that believes that climate change isn't an esoteric issue. contributee helps to to hurricane sandy. we know that the ocean levels are rising. this is a governor who pulled policies to prevent another hurricane like sandy. let's just be clear. sandyeanup costs after are 50%. 50% of what the costs were in the state of new york. i do not know where she gets the statistics. secondly, all i know is this. i think as i have traveled around the state in the last 11 months, the people of new jersey are proud of the job that our ministration did in responding to sandy. i think that they know if
another storm god forbid hit here, we would be ready. >> climate change. your opponent just brought it up. humanosition on whether activity plays a role in global warming has evolved over the years. in 2010, you were skeptical of it. in 2011, he said climate change is real. sandy, you didn't want to answer the question because you said you were billing -- dealing with the storm. this is not an academic question. you?e science sold for >> yes. i said that in 2011. the question you are referring to was did climate change create sandy? i said, i don't have time to sit down and study that. i am trying to help millions of
people recover from the storm. the fact is, there is lots of divergent opinion on the issue. theid in my position, climate change is real and human activity pays a role. >> what you say to people in your party who deny this? >> it is not my job to respond to every difference on every issue that i have with members of my party. what my job is is to be the governor of new jersey. i do that job, and the extent of stay, isues affect our do the job. we are the second solar state in the country. three new power stations that are gas fired. 2020ve met our goals for in carbon emissions already.
we are proud of our record. >> actions speak louder than words. this governor pulled out of the regional -- it is no wonder we have 400,000 people out of work when you pull out of this. of theservative base national republican party doesn't like cap and trade programs. made thatnor political decision, and the people of new jersey have suffered. i was a prime sponsor, along with senator kaine. orhas either ignored thwarted this. hurricane sandy, a fire devastated parts of the seaside boardwalk last month. investigators couldn't include the fire was related to damage from sandy, the governor approved sandy funds to rebuild
those businesses affected by the fire. even if those businesses were affected by sandy. do you think that was appropriate use of sandy money? >> you would be asking that question if you been down to communities and listening to people. they are struck by the inequity of it all. speed the money went to rebuild the boardwalk. people need to rebuild their lives. you have to go down there. people are living in trailer still. i was in union beach over the weekend. adnndrea was crying. she still didn't have an answer from the are are -- rrem program. it is a bungling. also the detriment of the folks
that are victimized by hurricane sandy. >> you would not have given money to the seaside businesses? >> i'm not one to supplant my judgment. i don't have access to the stats. i would have to look at because. the inequity is striking. the priority has to be people getting people back in their homes. >> of a guarantee. will not beo supplanting her judgment for mine. it was an appropriate use of that money. program has rrem given out a billion dollars in new jersey to help sandy victims. the program is finishing the federally required environmental reviews before building can begin. these are all important details
or the public to know. >> i want to move on to an issue that is important to the region pretty same-sex marriage. he issue is headed to the spring court. a judge has ruled that the state is obligated to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. a couple has appealed to the supreme court. the supreme court has agreed to hear the case. i ask you, personally, would you be disappointed if the supreme court were to rule in favor of the law? marriagesame-sex became legal in the state? >> my position has been clear. i believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman. that has been my position when i
ran into thousand nine and continues to be. i believe that if we are going to change the fundamental nature of a 2000-year-old institution, that should be done by one entity, the voters of the state of new jersey. or the supreme court politicians in trenton. it should be done by the people by referendum rate if the people were given the opportunity to vote, and did vote in favor to amend our constitution, i would uphold that and support those laws with the same vigor i uphold the constitution and support the laws of governor now. >> the governor is consistent. he has aligned his views with his social views with sarah iowa republican caucus. not mine with new jerseyans. this is a human rights issue. this governor equates it with guns and taxes. he said at last week. it is a human issue. friends of mine, david and
richard, they had a committed relationship for the last 10 years. i hope and pray that this governor either withdraws his appeal or that he moves his appeal so you can be married on october 21, and i will be there. >> one of the faces of the campaign has been that of senator buono's daughter, who is gay and has fought for marriage equality. i want to ask you, if andrew or sarah, or bridget came to you and said i am gay, and i want to marry the love of my life, what would you say to them? andf my children came to me said that they were gay, i would grab them and hug them and tell them i love them. just like i would do with any of my children who came to me with news they wanted to give to me that that was important enough to open themselves up in that way.
what i would also tell them this that dad believes marriage is between one man and one woman. that is my position. theyildren understand that are going to have differences of opinion in our house, and in houses across the state. if in fact at the end of the day the people of new jersey were given the opportunity to vote, and voted differently, i would support that law. until that time, i support the 2000-year-old definition of marriage. to themwhat i explain tonight. i know they would understand their father loves him. that is the most important thing. >> senator would you like to respond? >> no. >> he proposed a ban of the semi-automatic rifle. when democrats into a bill may ban, you vetoed it. making a simple change to the bill, you struck
the whole thing. you could have sent it back to legislature and said i want a ban on new sales. you didn't do that. why? were you caving to pressure? >> what i was doing was i had an agreement with the leaders of the legislature what the band would look like. they decided for political reasons to make the ban more broad. they need to understand if they break a deal with me, there is going to the verifications. i vetoed the bill. the fact is you cannot in wanting to have the type of bipartisan agreement that we have had the legislature, the most important thing is that people on both sides need to keep their word. i didn't keep their word on this. he decided to go too far, and i vetoed the bill. others may have taken another steps. >> were you trying to teach them of lesson for the sake
future negotiations? >> what i was trying to do was to tell them that that was when i was willing to agree to. if they were unwilling to do that and try to score the local points, we need to go back to the beginning and start over. let me point out that the fact is that that is the way negotiations work all the time between an effective governor and ineffective legislature. it is the way it works. people need to keep their word. >> there are some may man called the conditional veto. the governor has made liberal use of the government -- of the conditional veto. -- program if he signed that it they would work actively against him in the republican the hampshire primary. that is it. instead of standing up to the nra, he will to. i know governors have a reputation of being tough. when it came to the nra, you will to. you should have stood up to
them. >> i would like to hear from both of them on the affordable care act. as you know, the governor has the federal government will take the lead on a delicate issue, when you think the federal government doesn't do a good job at doing those things? the governor says he is following a law, and this was an option presented to him. he claims that health care is more affordable in this state now already because of this policy? is that true? >> of the governor go first. >> first off, i joined 33 other states, democrats and republicans, who choose the federal option. the reason why we chose was because the obama administration
refused to tell governors of both parties how much it was going to cost, and how much control he would have over that? if you're going to be responsible because they know ability to make decisions and how it is going to work, i say no thank you. i'm not going to accept a blank check to the federal government. the federal option was an option the president and the congress put in readable yet taken that option just like 33 other states. no, i don't federal government is good at running things. over time it is going to prove their not good at running this either. the fact is, i'm not one to give a blank check to the federal government for what i believe is a flawed bill and a failed policy. >> is this not passive resistance to obamacare? >> there has never been any passive about my resistance. not one. to coin a phrase. this a lost opportunity.
we should've had a state run health care exchange. people would have had more choices. there would have been less costly. we left 10 million federal dollars on the table. money that could have been utilized to conduct a robust outreach program to the people all over new jersey. the reason this governor is doing the passive resistance is because he doesn't want to be seen as embracing obamacare. his buddies in congress, the architect of the shutdown, this is the reason they shut down government. they do not like the aca bill. it was voted on, validated by the supreme court. just because they don't have the thes, they are holding american people hostage. this a threat to democracy. , in the lastono debate and again here tonight, the governor brought up robbery taxes. getas been unable to
legislation through the legislature. >> that is untrue. >> if you become governor, would you in the practice of five and six-figure payouts to police and other local government workers when they retire? is ais is an issue that local issue. these are contracts negotiated by mayors, not by the state government. the state has limited sick pay leave to 15,000 payouts. that was a bill be sent to the governor. it was sent back. there was negotiation. we were trying to reach a meeting of the minds. you can't take away something that people have earned. downld be happy to sit with an understanding that we have to end these abuses. >> she opposes because she's in the pocket of the local unions, who endorsed her and support her , and spend money on her behalf.
it is that simple. it is a local issue. not bet is, you should paying people hundreds of thousands of dollars because they weren't sick. the gift is, you want sick. you should be paying for it. i'm going to veto any bill that gives a $15,000 additional giveaway to your public sector union pals. i'm going to stand up for the taxpayers. no more sick pay payouts. >> the pba endorsed you. >> they have not endorsed me. .> i need to respond briefly i am not in anybody's pocket. that was a personal attack. i ran in 1994 against the political bosses. i beat him. people said i couldn't do it. i have been underestimated. i have run against the bosses time and time again. nobody controls they.
i'm here for the people of new jersey. i am not in a pocket in anyone. you ought to know that governor. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen. do you fill better now? >> had to let it out. a perfectd like moment for another candidate to candidate in corridor -- encou nter. >> i want to ask you again, you voted for 154 tax and fee increases. is there when you regret? >> obviously last week you were not paying attention. what i said is i have been in the legislature for 19 years. theknow you do not vote on budgets. a budget has to be supported by revenue. whoever you are. the difference is, who pays, and how they paid. this is a governor who raise property taxes without asking
millionaires to pay a penny more. it is a governor who raise taxes on the working poor. in veto the minimum wage increase. it is the on believe. increase taxes by raising fares on trains and buses. you may not call it a tax, but it has the same effect. it increased tolls. i've said at last week. you are the last person to talk to anybody about taxes. is your opportunity to ask the question now. >> when you first came in to office, one of the first things you did was to flash --/$7.5 million for land parented. 33,000 less women were getting the needed care of preventive said thate, and you it was duplicate it.
are women getting too much health care questionnaire >> they're getting the help gay -- they are getting the healthcare they need. and provide a continuity of care so that those doctors can see those patients, men or women, in people to examine their entire health history, and have doctors prepared to deal with all of their needs. secondly, this is the administration that expanded medicaid. i am proud to have done it. , with care today qualified health centers with a record amount of fundy, and the expansion of medicaid, has made health care more predictable and available to those who are most in need in our state. i am very proud of that record in addition to the record of not cutting funding to our hospitals across the state. i am proud of that record. >> tor buono
, how will youno pay for all of this? is thetioned for years term. this is the vision for four years. the only suggestion for revenue has been raising taxes on millionaires, which would not provide the billions estimated you would need for all of this. weren't -- when you have to raise taxes on other earners? >> absolutely not. i want to respond to the governor. they can't absorb the influx of the 33,000 women who are without health care. to answer your question directly, yes, it would be a priority. it would be a vision for my first term. maybe it would not be implemented in four years. it is priority. i can tell you my plan will be a reordering of priorities. putting the middle class head of
the wealthy. making public education a priority. when you said fully fund education, it was fond education according to the school funding act i authored. -- i would be happy to talk about where we can find savings. i can tell you there is an enormous amount of waste, fraud, and abuse. one of the weight is how the state does contracting. they let contracts -- it is the wild west. we waste billions. >> here is the way it will happen. buono became governor, she will raise taxes. she will raise fees, and do it on everybody. cause has been not to raise taxes on the poor.
what i would say to the voters in new jersey, be careful. keep your hands on your wallet. to pay for her promises, senator buono will raise taxes. >> he is using your hard-earned tax dollars and spending it on a techie millionaires repairing -- from paying their property tax. [laughter] wish brokers is $13,000 a year for in-state students. years, you have been an opponent of the dream act, which will melt children of undocumented aliens to pay in- state rates. in a speech at the reagan library two years ago, you said i do not believe for the people who came here illegally that we
should be subsidizing with tax payer money education. this past saturday night, at a dinner of the latino leadership alliance, you seem to change her position. you said you are now four to wish inequality and. are you changing your position? >> no. my position has been the same all along. at the time, what i said to the people of new jersey was that we could not afford, given the budget mess we were left in by governor corzine and senator a burden put more of on state colleges and universities. what i have said is that an economic times got better, that would be one of the things that i would consider. what i said on saturday night now.he it is time the state budget revenues are going up. this is now something that we need to sit down with the legislature with. i suggested in that speech to
sit down and talk about how we wish respond to fund to inequality. i have never been opposed to to wish inequality. what i have been opposed is making the choice when there are other choices we needed to make any budget. it is not a change of position. >> respected the bacon library taking ay seen as position against the dream act. >> they were wrong. >> be careful. this governor has a history of saying one thing and doing another. he supported a ban on 50 caliber rifles, and then turn around and veto the. be leftmers should not behind. like all of our children, we invest in their future in high school, and all they want is like our kids. they want an opportunity to succeed. it makes no sense from a moral
perspective or an economic perspective read all of her children he to have the skills and education they need to compete in the 21st century to grow our economy. >> the next question comes for me. jtv came into being, i had a chance to interview your predecessors. even back then, something occurred to me. to be a sitting governor in the state of new jersey and run for president? no.consensus was the way the government is structured, because of the enormous powers and responsibilities unique to the governor of new jersey, some, respected, man we governor cain, he said it was too big a job. could you conceive of running
for president and maintaining a position as governor of the state of new jersey? >> i don't know. i've never run for president. neither has governor cain or governor byrne. i think i've now covered all of the ones who are alive and you could interview. the fact is, i don't know the answer to that question. what i do know is that for the last four years, the people of new jersey have watched me do this job. they have watch me do it aggressively and watch me do it forthrightly. i believe they have watch me do it effectively. if i'm privileged enough to years, i willour do the job exactly the same way regardless of whatever else comes to the state. even my personal life, or the lives of the people of the state. >> will you stay the four years?
have no idea what the next four years ago and to bring me. absolutely no idea. i do not think the people of new jersey expect me to be able to predict what will happen over the next four years. i am proud of the record we have developed and how new jersey has gotten better. i want to continue to make it better. 25% oftor? >> here spent his time out of state. he is not bringing jobs back to new jersey. we are at the bottom of the barrel. i am not bothered by the problem -- by the fact he is run. he is the toilet, since the gone loss to cater to them -- he is the towing -- vetoing fun